Case Name NON ET AL, petitioners, vs. DAMES II AND MABINI COLLEGES, INC.

,
respondents.

Case No. | Date G.R. No. 89317 | May 20, 1990

Ponente CORTES, J.

DOCTRINES: (See full doctrines laid down by the Court on the third page)
1. The contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest,
considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory
and regulatory powers over all educational institutions [See Art. XIV, secs. 1-2, 4(1)].
2. The right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards (academic freedom) cannot be utilized
to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for otherwise
there will be a violation of their right to equal protection.

FACTS:
• Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, Inc., were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for
the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in student mass actions against the school in the
preceding semester.
• Petitioners filed a petition in the RTC Br. 38 of Daet, Camarines Norte seeking their readmission to the school.
• The RTC dismissed the petition, holding the doctrine of “termination of contract”i laid down in Alcuaz, et al. v.
Philippine School of Business Administration, et al.
• Motion for Reconsideration was filed, but this was denied, with the trial court, in addition to reiterating the
doctrine in Alcuaz, reciting the facts that petitioners failed to deny respondent’s affirmative defenses that they
were given all the chances to air their grievances. Also noting that petitioners signed (1) an enrollment form
which recognizes the right of the college to deny admission; and (2) pledges promising their compliance with the
rules and required conduct of the school. The RTC also noted that there was no legal right established for the
petition; it being a mere privilege and not a legal right to be enrolled or re-enrolled, Mabini College has discretion
in view of its academic freedom.
• Hence, petitioners urge the Court to review and reverse the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz, et al. v. Philippine
School of Business Administration, et al.
• In the respondent’s Comment in the petition, they also justified their action through alleging that of the thirteen
(13) petitioners, eight (8) have incurred failing grades, to which petitioners replied that (1) three of the 13 were
graduating; (2) their academic deficiencies, if any, do not warrant non-readmission; (3) their breach of discipline
was not serious; (4) their improper conduct was in exercise of their cognate rights; (5) there was no due
investigation as basis for disciplinary action; (6) the school admitted students with worse deficiencies; (7) they
already lost one and a half school years, which is punishment enough.

ISSUES:
1. W/N the “termination of contract” doctrine laid down in Alcuaz, et al. v. Philippine School of Business
Administration, et al. should be maintained.

2. W/N the petitioners’ non-readmission was valid on the grounds of their alleged academic deficiencies.

HELD:
1. NO. The "termination of contract" theory does not hold because the contract between the school and
the student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority given by the
Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational
institutions [See Art. XIV, secs.1-2, 4(1)].

The "termination of contract" theory does not even find support in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
Para 137 merely clarifies that a college student enrolls for the entire semester to protect schools for tuition fee
collection. On the contrary, the Manual recognizes the right of the student to be enrolled in his course for the
entire period he is expected to complete it as stated in Paragraph 107 and reiterated in Batas Pambansa Blg. 232.

2. NO. (1) The five students who did not incur failing marks should be allowed to re-enroll.
(2) Of the eight, some have only one or two failures. Their failures not considered as academic deficiency within
the context of Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines.
 (3) For the students who incurred several failing grades, respondents did not provide the academic standards of
the school from which Court can gauge if these students are indeed academically deficient. Thus, the Court
cannot affirm non-readmission of these students due to insufficient information.

Unequivocal statement in Villar that the right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards
cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and
assembly, for otherwise there will be a violation of their right to equal protection.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of respondent judge dated August 8, 1988 and
February 24, 1989 are hereby ANNULLED. Respondent Mabini College is ORDERED to readmit and to allow the re-
enrollment of petitioners, if they are still so minded, without prejudice to its taking the appropriate action as to
petitioners Ariel Non, Joselito Villalon, George (Jorge) Dayaon and Daniel Torres, if it is shown by their records (Form
137) that they have failed to satisfy the school's prescribed academic standards. SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring – she concurred in the majority opinion in Alcuaz et al., but expressed in her
vote: "Except for the general statement that students' enrollment is limited to per semester, I concur.” She agrees that
the "termination of contract doctrine" should be overturned for being a doctrinal error.

PADILLA, J., concurring – concurred in the majority opinion in Alcuaz et al., including in the portion that held that
college student in a private school is enrolled only for one (1) semester. However, he is now inclined to agree that the
student is “presumed to be qualified for enrollment for the entire period he is expected to complete the course,
without prejudice to his right to transfer.”

SARMIENTO, J., concurring – Have always held that schools are not free to penalize, by administrative sanction or
outright expulsion, students on account alone of the fact that they had taken part in mass actions or assemblies.
Takes note of the increasing practice by school heads to simply bar students from enrollment for a host of excuses as
a result of their exercise of constitutional rights. Gratified that the majority has put an end to this practice.
FULL DOCTRINES as laid down by the Court in this case.
(Not issue-based but specifically laid down in the case in this manner; all are related to topic, so ma’am might
discuss)

1. The Student Does Not Shed His Constitutionally Protected Rights at the Schoolgate.
In Malabanan v. Ramento:
Petitioners are entitled to invoke the right to peaceable assembly and free
speech. They do not, to borrow from the opinion of Justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines
Community School District, "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." While, therefore, the authority
of educational institutions over the conduct of students must be recognized,
it cannot go so far as to be violative of constitutional safeguards

2. Permissible Limitations on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights Within the School.

School authorities are not powerless to discipline students, but the imposition of disciplinary sanctions
requires due process, and penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense committed

3. Circumventing Established Doctrine.

The Court recognizes here that instead of suspending or expelling students, a new variation of the same
stratagem was adopted by the school authorities, which is refusing students’ re-enrollment on grounds other
than misconduct but rather due to "academic deficiency."

4. The Nature of the Contract Between a School and its Student.

The "termination of contract" theory does not hold because the contract between the school and
the student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority given by
the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all
educational institutions [See Art. XIV, secs.1-2, 4(1)].

The "termination of contract" theory does not even find support in the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools. Para 137 merely clarifies that a college student enrolls for the entire semester to protect schools for
tuition fee collection.ii

On the contrary, the Manual recognizes the right of the student to be enrolled in his course for the entire
period he is expected to complete it as stated in Paragraph 107iii and reiterated in Batas Pambansa Blg. 232.

5. Academic Freedom Not a Ground for Denying Students' Rights

Unequivocal statement in Villar that the right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards
cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and
assembly, for otherwise there will be a violation of their right to equal protection.

6. Capitol Medical Center and Licup .

The cases used as basis for respondent’s arguments are held untenable by the Court as the cases have
dissimilar issues.

7. The Instant Case

Failing grades of the eight (8) out of the thirteen (13) petitioners not tenable justification.
(1) The five students who did not incur failing marks should be allowed to re-enroll.
(2) Of the eight, some have only one or two failures. Their failures not considered as academic deficiency
within the context of Villar.
(3) For the students who incurred several failing grades, respondents did not provide the academic
standards of the school from which Court can gauge if these students are indeed academically deficient.
Thus, the Court cannot affirm non-readmission of these students due to insufficient information.

The matter on the appropriate penalty for the petitioners, for their misconduct per se, is moot given that the
petitioners have already been refused readmission for four (4) semesters.
i “Termination of contract doctrine” laid down in Alcuaz, et al. v. Philippine School of Business Administration, et al:

“That a college student, once admitted by the school, is considered enrolled only for one semester and, hence, may be
refused readmission after the semester is over, as the contract between the student and the school is deemed
terminated.”
ii137.When a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire school year for elementary and
secondary courses, and for the entire semester for collegiate courses. A student who transfers or otherwise withdraws, in writing,
within two weeks after the beginning of classes and who has already paid the pertinent tuition and other school fees in full or for
any length of time longer than one month may be charged ten per cent of the total amount due for the term if he withdraws within
the first week of classes, or twenty per cent if within the second week of classes, regardless of whether or not he has actually
attended classes. The student may be charged all the school fees in full if he withdraws anytime after the second week of classes.
However, if the transfer or withdrawal is due to a justifiable reason, the student shall be charged the pertinent fees only up to and
including the last month of attendance.
iii
Every student has the right to enroll in any school, college or university upon meeting its specific requirement and reasonable
regulation: Provided, that except in the case of academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulation, the student is
presumed to be qualified for enrollment for the entire period he is expected to complete his course without prejudice to his
right to transfer.